Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Really? Please let me know when science has the opportunity to start with simple life forms and observe them developing into the variety of species known today, and please advise me how science will be able to ascertain how that development took place apart from either intelligence or design.
A very quick summary as what is required for a theory . . .
I thought these were requirements for "science." And I responded in saying science has the burden of declaring intelligent design unnatural or supernatural before it can eliminate consideration of the same as being "unscientific." On what basis can science declare intelligent design "supernatural" when there are demonstrable cases of intelligent design taking place constantly, our correspondence notwithstanding?
Can you believe she actually married Dennis Rodman? Geez, is there no accounting for taste?
Fester, Fester, Fester. I *know* you have been told time and time again what a Scientific Theory is.
It is disingenuous for you to pretend you don't know what it is and why it is that the Theory of Evolution is a much more mature and filled-out theory than the Theory of Gravity.
Seeing something fall down is a DATUM in the TToG.
More like run away as a cockroach when the lights come on...
"Really? Please let me know when science has the opportunity to start with simple life forms and observe them developing into the variety of species known today, and please advise me how science will be able to ascertain how that development took place apart from either intelligence or design."
*Sigh* Repeatability of *confirimation/falsification tests* not initial conditions! Do you think we can achieve the conditions involved in stellar evolution or in the Big Bang theory?
"I thought these were requirements for "science." And I responded in saying science has the burden of declaring intelligent design unnatural or supernatural before it can eliminate consideration of the same as being "unscientific." On what basis can science declare intelligent design "supernatural" when there are demonstrable cases of intelligent design taking place constantly, our correspondence notwithstanding?"
From what I just posted:
"...It means non-natural when the proponents of ID claim and purport that non-natural intelligent agencies were behind it. The ID community has long admitted that ID is non-natural. There's nothing for science to demonstrate since the non-natural is not testable. Why do you think ID-proponents are pathetically attacking methodological naturalism?"
She has always been shooting to be Too Hip For The Room. It was more a PR stunt (IMHO) to keep her marginal "career" aloft.
Wow. They must be a powerful bunch. But don't worry. Remember, words and ideas don't have consequences, and have no effect upon science or its implications.
Meanwhile, would you please explain to me what is unscientific about intelligent design? Try not to use any words or information lest you make yourself a case in point.
I already have:
"Let's see if ID is science. From a previous post:
'Is ID...:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?'
The Designer is not naturalistic; ID has already made that as a claim of their 'theory.' Since the Designer's not naturalistic, science can make no objective predictions of the Designer nor can science falsify the Designer. Thus, the Designer and the theory are neither falsifiable nor naturalistic. The falsifiable components, CSI and IC, have been meticulously falsified by TalkOrigins, Kenneth Miller, and many other biologists.
It's not tentative - ID assumed the conclusion, provided 'evidence' for it, and concluded the assumption.
It's not parsimonius; they have to invoke an intelligent Designer to explain the diversity of life when evolution is very successful at doing that already also. They have to explain how an Intelligent Designer would make 98.5% of our genome and many other organisms consists of ERVS, noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. They also have to complicate matters by explaining how chimps and humans have identical ERV insertions. All they can do is say, 'That's what the Designer wanted.'
It doesn't make accurate predictions; IC is falsified, CSI is falsified, and other than that, ID doesn't even attempt to make specific, risky predictions. It produces no research.
It's not encompassing. It doesn't explain identical ERV insertions, or chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 in humans, or why all the evidence points towards evolution. When relativity replaced newtonian physics, it had to account for why so many predictions of Newtonian physics were accurate. ID doesn't even attempt to do that.
And finally, it's not supported. The evidence they have? Negative, misinformed arguments against evolution mostly. The only postive arguments? CSI and IC, both of which have been falsified."
By continuing science exploration? TToE is silent on God (as is all proper science). That doesn't make it ANTI-God. Why don't you go after Astronomy? I mean, that is "anti-Genesis" as well.
I simply question the entire illogical premise of evolutionary theory... that life originated from this planet...
The premise is logical and supported by MILLIONS of data points. We have seen micro-evolution in front of our eyes. Do you have another scientific theory that explains the evidence?
all I get is the religious Darwinian zealots spewing their hatred for Christians... seems rather Fascist if you ask me...
Please provide links supporting this accusation.
Give him a break. It might be one of the OTHER Festers at his frat house...
Why do you ignore posts directly on point to you? Tos has been amswered multiple times. Please don't put me in a position to quote the posts that have provded you exactly the information that you ignore.
It will be embarrasing for you.
LOLOLOL!!!
Well said. Over here (UK), I am confident our long Socialist winter is coming to an end; it's a good time to be a conservative, and getting better. And we look to the US as the world's foremost defender of freedom and democracy. But lunacy like this thread just feeds the liberal trolls in the international press.
I sometimes wonder about the motives of putting stuff like this nonsense up. You have to ask yourself, cui bono?
How do evolutionist feel about teaching life came from outer space? Hey, they teach the Big Bang theory, don't they?
If Creationists believe in a flying spaghetti monster, as a lot of the jerks (a$$holes is a better word) from the Evolution religion like to say, then the Evolutionists must believe in a primordial boiling pot of spaghetti sauce...
I am not on anyone's side, just my own, there is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist... but, that logic is what bothers you Orthodox atheists, isn't it?
So why did the Israelites have a whole series of earthly monarchs, starting with David?
And why did those who believe in Genesis create the Divine Right of Kings?
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease. (BTW, evolution does not meet this criteria. Any life form found today can be crammed into the imaginary tree, or lawn, of common descent.)
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
Inasmuch as science is subjective and does not attain to a full understanding of how things work there will always be modifications involving interpretive and expressive elements, just as the work of intelligent design itself is subject to change, sometimes even in mid course.
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
The word "natural" is not scientific, but arbitrary. Unless you can answer on what basis science determines what is natural and what is not, the word is scientifically meaningless. It certainly does not apply to intelligent design, since intelligent design is an observable phenomena and has been since the dawn of science itself.
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
It attributes the organization of matter performing specific functions to a most likely cause: intelligent design. Moreover, the inclination is to assume a single intelligent designer for the sake of simplicity.
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
Intelligent design predicts we will find organized matter performing specific functions, whether it extends to the fossil record or matter as yet unknown by science.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
Intelligent design recognizes the dynamic processes that take place as result of the implementation of a well-designed machine. As such, it expects to find change within a limited scope.
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?'
You can start by counting the number of characters in this post and how they combined in a way that conveys information from one party to another. Then consider how many such communications take place in such a manner in a single day on FR. Then consider the physical apparatus needed to make this happen, and whether this kind of organization can happen apart from intelligence, design, or a combination of the two.
----
Now that I have addressed the points you consider necessary for ID to be "scientific," has it occurred to you that science has not yet determined whether your requirements meet scientific criteria in the first place?
Do you have a scientific alternative?
How do evolutionist feel about teaching life came from outer space? Hey, they teach the Big Bang theory, don't they?
They don't. You seem to be confused about your own point. And the Big Bang (abiogenesis and the like) is not part of TToE.
If Creationists believe in a flying spaghetti monster, as a lot of the jerks (a$$holes is a better word) from the Evolution religion like to say, then the Evolutionists must believe in a primordial boiling pot of spaghetti sauce...
The FSM is an allegorical construct to show that anyone can "believe" anything they want and it has no effect on science. I am sorry you were unable to understand the point behind this humorous construct. Perhaps you understand it better now?
I am not on anyone's side, just my own, there is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist... but, that logic is what bothers you Orthodox atheists, isn't it?
I am not an athiest, nor are most of the people on these threads who understand TToE. To use it as an epithet suggest to me 2 things: 1) You are biased against atheists; and 2) you are unaware of to whom you are speaking (in general).
These threads provide many opportunities for you to learn about the subject at hand. I urge you to avail yourself of these opportunities.
Ignorance is NOT a Conservative value. Willfull Ignorance even less so.
Nice strawman, red herring, and non-sequitur. The claim of evolution is that species arise from gradual successive changes in ancestral species until new species arise. The rate of this is dependent on selection pressures.
The origin of life is relegated to research in abiogenesis, not evolution. Pink unicorns on the imaginary planet of Alpha-2 in a different brane could have seeded life on the universe for all biologists care in terms of evolution; what remains though is that species change and are not static.
But, of course, there is far more evidence to support the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis in abiogenesis than pink unicorns on a different brane.
Does calling it Terra make you feel smarter?
How do evolutionist feel about teaching life came from outer space?
I'd be OK with it, as soon as you came up with some evidence....
Hey, they teach the Big Bang theory, don't they?
Not in biology class, no.
I am not on anyone's side, just my own, there is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist... but, that logic is what bothers you Orthodox atheists, isn't it?
You're as atheist as the Pope. Who are you trying to fool? Why would an atheist claim that Moses wrote Genesis? That's an entirely religious claim, with no documentary evidence, based on a particular faith tradition. And since it's a religious claim, why would an atheist believe it? The objective evidence is that major parts of Genesis derive from an earlier Sumerian tradition; the flood ion Gilgamesh long predates Moses, even if you accept the oldest Christian dating of Moses.
You remind me of the "lifelong Republicans" who write into the paper to announce they're now Democrats. Yeah. right.
You have adressed nothing. As usualy, you merely say "what IS truth anyway?" A statement like "The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease" pretty much tells everyone you have no intention of taking this topic seriously.
I can; wait for your Junior year when you learn at least a little (and silly remarks like theprevious result in Failing grades).
Take your schoolboy philosophy rants to a philosophy thread in Chat somewhere. The grown-ups here are trying to discuss real issues.
I don't mean "schoolboy" as an insult -- merely an observation on the level of your discourse. Don't feel bad. We were all children once, also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.